User talk:Splash/Archive12

Archive to end 1st August 2005 – 17th August 2005 – 11 September 2005 02:53 (UTC) – 26 September 2005 – 22 October 2005 – 19 November 2005 – 5 December 2005 – 3 January 2006 – 20 January 2006 – 5 February 2006 – 4 March 2006

Cooley Protection Discussion

I apologize for using the term "abusive". However, note that I said "seems borderline" before using that term, thus indicating that this action might be perceived as abusive. That is, I did not directly accuse this individual of abusive action. In fact, your response to me was far more unfriendly in tone than my initial post, so perhaps you should check out those links. Also, my suspicion was not without evidence -- this protection was applied without following procedure and long after the disgusing reverts had subsided and had been replaced with a friendly discussion on the page's talk regarding the inclusion of the offending image. Thus, I apologize again for any offense I may have caused (though I maintain that I stopped far, far short of calling the admin in question abusive) and would appreciate it if you would follow your own advice and treat me with a bit more civility than your post reflected. Thank you. Consensusbuilder1 15:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at WP:RfP. -Splash^talk 16:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4DL programming language

"ANNOYED" eh? haha. userify the above article text to my userspace for me (I'm not an admin), and I'll create the Cliff L. Biffle article and merge it in... and then propose merges for the other two esoterics that you kept. How would that be? ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, userfied to User:Lar/4DL programming language. Standard warning on use of deleted content apply (i.e. that some people don't like it so much and that you must retain the userfied article for GFDL purposes following any merge). Little did I realise that that AfD was only the first of many bulk esoteric language nominations... -Splash^talk 20:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I watch what I start and prefer to keep all threads in one place, feel free to reply here, in fact please do...) K, thanks. I think I'll preserve the history via a series of moves, first to User:Lar/Cliff L. Biffle then to Cliff L. Biffle once it's ready. See any problem with that? I tend to do that with articles I author and then tag the remnant redirect (which has nothing in it, since the history went with the moved article) for speedy... ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine. -Splash^talk 21:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Morgan-Mar and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Heber

Sorry for causing trouble with these AfDs. When I listed those I believed they were clear deletes and that combining them would actually make things clearer by giving people the whole picture. Several people not too experienced with AfD turned up and unfortunatly the whole thing turned into quite a mess. I will study the comments made and decide if I will relist them seperatly later. Again sorry, —Ruud 20:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Did You Know - Puerto Rico

Hi, how are you? I noticed you closed the AfD for DYKPR. I noticed you removed the original redirected page from the wiki. I was wondering if it could be placed back as I, personally, see nothing wrong with the cross-namespace redirect. And a few pages around the wiki still point to it. Thanks for your consideration! --Stux 01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Makes sense! Cool! Thanks for letting me know! --Stux 02:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian selected article

I noticed you just closed the TFD on Indian featured article. I've marked a fork of the template for speedy deletion at Template:Indian selected article. Pagra shtak 03:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. -Splash^talk 03:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Logo

Template:Logo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Domingo

They tried to restore their edits under Special:Contributions/71.34.127.199, needs a longer block. Arniep 00:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a month. -Splash^talk 00:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Arniep 00:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

back again Special:Contributions/65.102.34.37. Arniep 15:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may need to protect the article again they've vandalized three times today. Arniep 15:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MIMO Communications

Why did you return the article to the previous title? MIMO has at least two meaning in Electrical Engineering: MIMO Control and MIMO Communications. Avoiding ambiguity is much more important than avoiding the abreviations. This page is about MIMO Communications and the current title is a wrong title for it. Bidabadi 00:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call it something like Multiple-input multiple-output (communications) instead, then. -Splash^talk 00:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer something like Multiple-antenna communications. How is that? Bidabadi 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bashas' up for deletion review

Just letting you know that I've asked DRV to review your closing of the AfD. Meaning no disrespect (and last time I went to DRV to complain about an admin discounting opinions I was proven comprehensively wrong), but I think reversing an 83% delete consensus is a little drastic. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Thivierr's edits to Bashas' since I've withdrawn the DRV request. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Ghost Stalker

I'm curious as to why you edited my comment when you closed the AfD for Ghost Stalker: [1]. I'll grant that the suggested final target may make more sense with this particular group of articles (although the "List of..." article came much more readily to mind upon seeing the series of nominations), but my comment as it now stands, edited to say "the thing they said", doesn't really make much sense in light of this AfD per se, because there was no "thing" previously mentioned, only what you listed in the AfD result. So it looks like my comment was referencing something mentioned after the fact. Thanks. — TKD (Talk) 12:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the explanation. — TKD (Talk) 14:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette Complaints

I see someone has complained about me at WP:WQA. I'm not asking for a view on the complaint, but can you advise me on procedure, as I'm not familiar with this side of things at all - am I supposed to mount a defence, or do I just ignore it? Thanks.Staffelde 14:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thanks! Staffelde 16:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was OK

Ref:13:43, March 7, 2006 (hist) (diff) Ronald Richter (unsprot: trying just a brief protection here since the vandalism was fairly light) (top)

Comment: As the persistent vandalism (see histories and talk pages of this and related articles) was only by the famous 200.*.*.*, sprot was the perfect solution to allow registered users to edit the article. Jclerman 21:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reversion of tag

What's up with the reversion of the disputed tag? RJII 23:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a disputed tag, it was a "censorship" tag, and it said so in its name. -Splash^talk 23:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a dispute tag as to whether relevant and notable information was being censored. What's the problem? RJII 23:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you deleted the actual templates to??? RJII 23:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of perfectly good tags, and things that cry "censorship" are nothing but inflammatory and easily deleted on TfD, not to mention that a tag by the same name has been tried and gotten rid of before. It's called 'editing' not censorship. -Splash^talk 23:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you have a problem with the terminology. So I'll recreate it with a different name. No problem. By the way, what gives you the authority to delete a template without a consensus? RJII 23:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will be unlikely to get a tag such as that to stick regardless. Just use {{POV-section}} or something rather than crafting unhelpfully worded, specialised tags that inflame. -Splash^talk 23:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it will stick. There's a real need for it. So far there is no tag to indicate a dispute about notable information being kept OUT of an article. There's only tags for things that are IN the article. RJII 23:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. As your template itself says, it is an NPOV dispute. We have tags a-plenty. In fact, why is there even a need to tag the fact> Why not edit the information down to a compromise and put it in that way? Why not seek some other means that PINK BOXES that SHOUT at people? -Splash^talk 23:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, but when one both parties won't compromise, it needs to be announced that there's a dispute so that reader is aware that there may be something important that's being left out and he may not be getting the whole story. RJII 00:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital communications

Some day, I am going to stop all admin business and make a serious, concentrated effort to clean up the digital communications pages on Wikipedia. I came across Universal code (data compression) today, and thought that there is some serious work which needs to be done. The ideas are just scattered everywhere and highly disorganized. I don't suppose you have also studied space-time encoding as well? Anyway, it will probably happen when the summer begins. I am still quite busy, but hopefully we'll be able to work togther on some interesting topics at our convenience. See you around! --HappyCamper 01:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The project that I tried to start is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Digital Communication Systems - I was hoping that some people would spontaneously build the project, just like what happened with Wikipedia:WikiProject Polymers, but unfortunately, it seems that there are more "scientists" around on Wikipedia, then "engineers". The topics related to the latter are relatively less developed than those of the former. I might try making modifications to fading, but at the moment, I have an inclination to just make templates and get organized. I hope I can start this in the summer. You are right, the PSK article turned out great - I like it a lot. Getting these technical articles up to featured status might be a bit daunting, and probably next to impossible by the looks of it :-) I like templates a lot - if you look at the quantum mechanics page, the template on the left used to be filled with red quantum chemistry links. After a few months, the articles began to be populated. I expect the same thing to happen with the digital communications articles too. --HappyCamper 01:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

I'd appreciate your input at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Self_reference regarding the use of material that can only be derived from the subject of the article.
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 02:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

See [2]. Should I block the lister too? He seems to be violating 3rr himself.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 20:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS

Just a heads up but have a look at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, especially the section Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Please do not feed the trolls, noting the contributions of particular users to the discussion page. I got caught over there in a pointless discussion. Steve block talk 22:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mining of CfD

I'd be very interested to see the subpage you and Radiant! came up with. -- Samuel Wantman 00:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Kansas

You closed the AfD for this article as no consensus, but there were almost twice as many delete votes as keep votes. This seems like a pretty clear consensus to me. Would you mind explaining please? Fightindaman 00:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. One more question then. Since, as I mentioned in my last comment, there is currently an AfD open for all the other similar lists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state, what would be the best course of action to pursue with regards to the Kansas list? It seems like it would be somewhat poor to add it in to that AfD so late (and since it just was up for deletion), but it also seems like nominating it again in the case of the deletion of all the other lists (which would be in a few days) would also look bad, despite there being evidence of a community consensus to remove similar lists. Thanks. Fightindaman 00:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm new to relisting and I didn't realize that was the process. It makes sense. Thanks. moink 02:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self control?

Self control? Check out Special:Contributions/User:SPUI. He has managed to move about 80% of the entire California State Route System. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I saw that he got blocked as a possible pagemove vandalbot! I think if he tries a stunt like that again he's likely to find the provisions in his recent ArbCom remedy invoked. -Splash^talk 13:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anything going on?

Hi - I've been inordinately busy in the real world for the past several weeks (to the point of not even logging on). Anything in particular going on that I might be interested in? I see we've passed 1,000,000 articles. Anybody else significant gotten fed up and left (Radiant!'s the last one I heard about). Just curious. Per the note I just added to my talk page, I'm not gone or anything - just extremely busy. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

Did you know that something's been named after you? And it's small and adored and probably cute. Some guys have all the luck. <grumble> ;-) —Encephalon 04:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LoL. Dude... it's on his front page. Sent you on a goose chase, did I? Heh heh. :D —Encephalon 13:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My fish will try to overcome his sadness at being forgotten. :( He is a very pretty golden molly, and now has several friends, since I have defied my previous record of fishkeeping, and kept him alive and well. I have no doubt that the perseverant spirit of big Splash is responsible for this miracle. Wishing well for the little fellow, and hoping for fertility, his tankmates bear the names of my former romances -- I'm sure he'll have better luck. :) Xoloz 17:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article text.

Would you be willing to provide me with the text of the deleted article LainOS please? If you could place in my user area and drop a link on the bottom of my main user page it would be most helpful. Thanks --Silver86 09:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extraterrestrial Biological Entity

Why was the below article redirected to ET? I thought it was setup for a vote and nothing was finalised?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fjorn (talk • contribs) 13:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

<snip copy-paste of article>It was up for a 'vote', and that discussion concluded that the article should be made into a redirect to Extraterrestrial life, which was what I did. -Splash^talk 16:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject C++

The WikiProject C++ aims to increase the quality of C++-related articles on Wikipedia, and has discovered that you have participated in the editing of them! So don't hesitate, join us! --De ryck C. 15:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movement to impeach

Please see talk page, there is no reason to full protect. The anon user in question is under investigation is not just a typical user who has a disagreement. -- Stbalbach 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you put in a controversial block on a highly edited article and walk away? I've put in a request to have it unblocked at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection as well as left a message on the article talk page and have contacted another admins. The semi-block was in place because of a 3RR violation by an anon sock puppet, it was clearly explained on the talk page and in the edit history. -- Stbalbach 19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki

Hello. I'd like to know the destination of the article as a result of an AfD. Thanks. — Insta ntnood 21:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :-) — Insta ntnood 12:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Underwood Page

Hey Splash, I believe you're an administrator here correct? I understand that you removed the protection tag on the Carrie Underwood page, but please in the future request that it be unprotected, as a mere few hours after you removed the tag it was vandalized again with the same information that was being added before the page was protected. I believe had you requested unprotection, quite a few users would have given reason why it should not have been unprotected...as we were able to see when the tag was removed. At the very least post something about it on the talk page of the article so we can discuss it before we have to go through the annoyance of removing the same old vandalism time and again. Batman2005 21:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply on my talk page. I understand that adding the tag does not protect the page. I'm simply saying that admin or not, the page should be unprotected only after a request has been made and discussion held, to those of us who spent a month deleting vandalism to see it revandalised shortly after the tag was removed before we had a chance to discuss it. Batman2005 05:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: TFD

If these were not your edits on my user talk page, then please ignore this message: [3] [4] [5]

Anyway, it looks like I closed all of the March TFD discussions between 00:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC) and 00:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC). Although, generally speaking, 11 March is 7 days after 4 March, if you are judging by the actual UTC timestamp (the specific UTC hour, minute, and second), I guess you could say that I closed some of those discussions early. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will admit that I was not really paying attention to the actual timestamp when I closed some of them... so I will pay attention in the future. It has been about over 9 months since I was really active closing TFDs, and so I am kind of rusty... but I kind of wanted to do some of it while using the AWB. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Hi Splash,

If you have a spare moment, I wonder if you could take a look at Wikipedia:Scientific peer review? It might be something you might be interested in, and your ideas might be useful for the project. Let me know what you think! --HappyCamper 12:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movement to impeach George W. Bush

Splash, how much longer do you plan to keep the full protection on? There is no discussion happening here, because there is nothing to discuss. The anon user violated 3RR, it's really that simple. -- Stbalbach 16:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pretend you asked me nicely and unprotect it. -Splash^talk 18:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong?

What did I do wrong? I voted. What's wrong with that? I can't help it if he takes every comment I make as a "personal attack". And coming from him that's laughable since he's told other users to quote, "Eat (his) penis." JohnnyBGood 00:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. You're probably right with regard to a more constructive comment. As for engraciating myself to SPUI, at this point I'd rather kick myself in the nuts, then roll on tacks. He's like dealing with a child, only less cooperative.JohnnyBGood 01:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher only a very small part of User:Leifern's behaviour

At [6] you noted that Leifern had only turned up to be unpleasant. He had also been staggeringly unpleasant in a wide range of other articles and edits. Looking way back, the initial contact we had was him attacking me, but I see he deleted some edits of mine shortly before I relaised he existed. Looking further back, one of the bees in his bonnet is anti-vaccinationists. He will not have it that any such people exist, despite him explicitly making common cause with at least one in his mission to "fully inform" people who might accept a vaccination, anyone who disagrees is a bad person, and he was very forceful in dismissing the use of the (actually moderately common) term in an autism article (another bee). I think his recent editing conduct has been egregious in personal attacks on me, and I feel it is sufficiently so that admin attention ought to be focussed upon it. Would you please take note of it to a greater extent than just marking it in that closing note - apart from it upsetting me, it is not advnacing WP. Midgley 01:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid cluttering things up further by defending myself, see User:Leifern/Accusations by Midgley --Leifern 19:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Leifern/Accusations_by_Midgley#.5B.5BUser:Leifern.2FAccusations_by_Midgley.5D.5D Midgley 22:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TDS' tools

Thanks for the link to TDS' tools. I'd been asking around for this, even on IRC. Not too many people seem to know it exists. Put a link to it on my userpage.

Regards,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! It's certainly well-hidden and not oft-publicised. -Splash^talk 18:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm

It's just using replace.py in pywikipedia and doesn't log times its reverted, I would have sworn I had searched for "Splash" in the list before I ran it, I'm not the only one running a subst bot and you'll probally have to go thru this multiple times with multiple bots, it might be eaiser to protect the page, sorry about that -- Tawker 17:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm adding a manual regex to replace.py which should exclude you and any of your talk pages, it will stop my bot but not everyone else unless I can convince people to commit this to the tree, I'll see what I can do. Sorry about this, it looks like you're pulling your hair out with the number of times this has happened -- Tawker 17:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what I'll have a look at is a "checkpage" of sorts similar to the AWB one might be a good idea, it would run a list of pages people don't want to edit and the bots wouldn't touch them, that might be the best solution as there as it gives people a choice. -- Tawker 18:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Swedish Democrats

Hi Splash

Good rule this 3 times!

Sorry, but u got in wrong. I have not edited or removed anything other editors put in. I have only reverted what they took away (that I put in). I have been wery patient not to remove or edit anything there, and instead tryed to talk to them (as i understand is the proper WIKI way). If i have removed anything, its by accident.

All i did was to write under the headline:

"The Sweden Democrat's response to the controversy"

A headline WeeGee created, and put in three lines in - with i let stand. I told them repeatedly that i will try to correct anything they are not happy with, but they have to act in the same way as I have done. But, instead of talking about this - they removed my work repeatedly. So the "reverting other editors' changes" is not started by me. It all started when they reverted my change.

Regards, SweHomer 21:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oki, here is where this started [7] I enterd some (quite a lot) material that "liftarn" reverted. So all i did (or thouht i did ) was to reinsert what he took away. Then WeeGee started to delete my edits to. Quite annoying, i spend several hours with it... SweHomer 22:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the logo. I dont really know. There is some talk about changing it - but nothting defenitive. I checked the page, and yes - its much like the swedish democrats. ---

Splash pls help. WeeGee and i have now an agreement. That I will handle the part of the article "Sweden democrats respond" and he give me some slack with that and wont delete it again. Now this other person from Sweden "liftarn" again starts to delete the whole section I entered. My guess is that he works for a Swedish organization called Expo that have as its official purpose to work propagandistically against mainly just the Swedish Democrats. The way he argument, the way he aggregates allegations is a pure journalistic approach, not a WIKI NPOV one. I think I can work out an understanding with WeGee (with some help), but with “liftarn” I think it will be impossible. If I am right, and he is from Expo – then its he’s job to be bias. Well I will reinsert (and be car foul not to revert) what was deleted.SweHomer 11:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the deuce is going on?

When I access Talk:UltraViolet, it says that no such article exists. However, clicking "edit this page" and checking its history verifies that it is still all there, so...bug? Glitch? The page as recently moved, but that shouldn't have anything to do with it. - Hbdragon88 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Favor

Splash, I'm going on an indefinite wikibreak, and I was wondering if you could do me a favor. Freakofnurture has been running a bot-created list of images uploaded by blocked users at my request at User:Catapult/Images. A couple of other admins have been working on it--mostly Mushroom--but I've done most of it and I feel bad leaving it without reinforcements. It's pretty self-explanatory--check them and strike them, and if they're no good and uploaded by an indefinitely blocked or banned user, delete them and remove them. There's more information on the talk page there. If you're not inclined or you don't have time, don't worry about it. I'll ask a couple others to chip in, too, and you can as well if you'd like. We've done through R, alphabetically, and the bot is currently at T, so there isn't too far to go. I'd appreciate it--thanks. Chick Bowen 00:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seduction Community

My Wiki-lord,

While this article is at DRV, its main advocate has (at my suggestion) written a much better, thoroughly-sourced version at his user-page. He has also appropriately requested on the article's talk page that the new content be inserted, since it remains protected. I think his new version is worthy of another shot at AFD, given his citations. Please take a look, if you have time, and unprotect the article if you agree. I'd be happy to handle the relisting, if you're busy... just let me know. Thanks, Xoloz 16:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, my lord. I see you also cleaned out DRV -- without you, this place would be garbage within a week! :) Worshipfully, Xoloz 01:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also strew "cyber-rose" petals before you... Hamster Sandwich 19:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are both astonishingly good Wikipedians yourselves, so thank you. -Splash^talk 23:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright follow-up question

Thanks for answering my question concerning icons on the Village pump. What is the official policy for using icons like that on user pages, such as on the User:ElAmericano page? Please let me know, because I was planning on doing something similar. --Go for it! 17:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Thanks for the polite, clear explanation. I'll take them off ASAP. - ElAmericano (dímelo) 23:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might just change your vote.

[8] Apparently it didn't need to be as hush hush as I thought it was. I checked. This is the multi-million dollar company that Stephen Glicker ran for 8 years before selling. I think that qualifies as creadable noteabillity. (You can even still get to it just by typing in www.Glicker.com )

Image question

Since you seem to know about images, how do I find out what idiot deleted my "ElAmericano" icon that was at the top of my page. (I made this picture, just a simple screen shot of a word, not even of software, and I'm sure it's okay. People have told me so.) I'm kindof mad right now, especially since the deleted page has no history button now. - ElAmericano (dímelo) 04:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure about how I tagged it, as I don't really understand how to tag images correctly. It's not an Apple-specific font, though it does come will all Apples, just as Times New Roman comes with Windows. - ElAmericano (dímelo) 15:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Successful RfA

Thanks for your support and kind words on my recent RfA, which I am pleased to say passed with a final tally of 80/1/1. If you ever need any help, or if I mess something up as an admin, please let me know.

Cactus.man ✍ 07:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purging WP:WQA

Hi, how does this work? Who does it/is supposed to do it? I had posted one a while back and it was taken care of (thank you for helping there) within a day or so but it's still up there. What's the procedure? Thank you. --Mmounties (Talk) 18:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll do it. Just didn't want to step on anyone's toes. Thanks for the explanation. :) --Mmounties (Talk)

23:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN

Thanks for your post to WP:AN and for your efforts on IRC. I have phoned the Foundation and Danny is jumping on this as his highest priority. Johntex\^talk 18:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. I was only interested in the Wikipedia aspect of things and the possibility of compromise of a sysop account. I don't think the Foundation should get any more involved than that, and I imagine that they won't. -Splash^talk 22:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots' noticeboard

You posted a link on AN, this link doesn't seem to exist, not sure of the correct link -- Tawker 23:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll go and try to be drunk enough to find it funny :) -- Tawker 00:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was funny, for what it's worth. — Mar. 18, '06 [00:14] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I'm glad somebody did. -Splash^talk 03:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Command N AfD

Hi thanks for relisting the AfD for Command N per the WP:DRV, however a user has decided that you have reposted this article and wants it speedy deleted. I have removed the tag and informed the user on why this article has been undeleted however he is not convinced. I will not revert his tagging the article again, however as the "nom" of this article for AfD I thought you could (also helps you are an admin). Mike _{(T C)} 05:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boothy RFAr

I don't see the problem. Can you clarify? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: KocjoBot

Thanks for cleaning up after its mishap. (demonstrabily fed) -- llywrch 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I thought for a little while that we had a bot-war, since that bot was following another one, but I think we didn't. -Splash^talk 20:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from...

Aside from my talk page rant...I just made User:Voice of All/Protection/monobook.js. JS that only adds protection tabs. Not that I plan on unilaterally adding this :) to JS, but if you want to see if it works, then you may want to add it.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 22:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you were referring to when you said "keep the non-broken version". At any rate, would you consider adding the above JS to test it to see if it works. It is a copy of the protection stuff from mine, but the I had to separate out the protection tab existance trigger sript out from the rest, and I want to make sure that it still works. Thanks.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 01:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just updated that subpage a bit...it is now smaller and opens the protection window automatically.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 07:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I & Q

Hi, what does I adn Q means in your constellations graphics? Thank! bye

They stand for 'In-phase' and 'Quadrature'. They represent a sinusoid and a co-sinusoid which are conveniently 90degrees out-of-phase with one another and so can be used to transmit symbols that are taken from a constellation diagram by setting the amplitude of the two waves to the component of the modulation symbol along the two axes. For a full explanation see constellation diagram. -Splash^talk 14:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443/Proposed decision

Thanks for fixing my error in the implementation notes in the Boothy443 case [9]. This would have been a pretty bad mess if it had gone through to the announcement with the error . Hopefully the clerks and arbitrators can spot such errors but if someone else spots a serious error like this that is very helpful. Thanks again. --Tony Sidaway 21:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I think your creation of the implementation notes section is a good idea. -Splash^talk 22:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main page news item

Hi Splash... re your change to the main page news item. I do think it is too long. FWIW I proposed the following formulation here: "Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister Laila Freivalds resigns over allegations that she played a role in closing down the website of the Sweden Democrats which had contained controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad". Thanks, Mikker ^... 22:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that needs to be properly wikified of course... (suggestion: point "controversial cartoons" to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy). Mikker ^... 22:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, thanks for the help! I'll try to think of something more accurate and post it to Template_talk:In_the_news if I do. Cheers, Mikker ^... 22:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JS

Just updated again so that move protects find the page more and project protects list where they should. You may want to just have a script write reference like the one for popups and filter recent changes, so you don't have to copy each update.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 02:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will copy the current one over in a sec. I'd prefer not to script-write the code in, since I like (for some reason) to be in control of what's in my monobook.js. If you maintain a version list somewhere in your userspace, I'll watchlist it and update as I notice it. -Splash^talk 02:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to list this stuff at User:Voice of All/Useful.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 20:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please update this JS; the way you have it now, protected project pages are listed with articles...which could be a problem. Do you care if I do this time?Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 22:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I updated already. I think - you last amended it at 01:57, right? -Splash^talk 22:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah..I see...yes, then it is up to date. The only thing left is to make it say how is was protected in the de-listing summary. Because that only appears in the history, I have'nt had enough motivation to make it yet...someday...later...Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WM 22

My preferred layout? Let me tell you something bro, I'm just following WrestleMania article standards. However, just to make you happy I added comments from WWE.com. Perry 03:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok changed format. Perry 03:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bureaucrat

I know there's a lot of people who think we don't need anymore, but have you considered it? Steve block talk 08:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah oh...

This[10] could be a serious WP:V problem. I wonder if WP:BOLD will come intor play soon...I don't know...but that is just not exceptable. Which reminds me of WP:V lately: Since when was WP:V something people could just use a matt for their dog to urinate on...was WP:V always so poorly enforced?Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 19:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indef block of IPs

I recognize in general this is bad, especially for shared IPs. In this case however, these IPs are only ever used by this one, persistent vandal. *shrug* Wikibofh_(talk) 22:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

Yes, apparently some kind individuals semi-protected my pages after the Disruptive Apartheid editor started vandalizing my pages over and over (e.g.[11] - note the rather nasty edit summary). Jayjg ^(talk) 23:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bug

Did the message that said what the summary had all of those articles in it?Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 23:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see the problem. Jew and Bush had the same summary, so it made the splitpoint everything between them, split the page on that to get the second half, and got BS. I can fix it by making the split point = (THE ARTICLE + splitpoint(the original splitpoint, as in just the explanation). That way, if a person uses the same summary like that, it wont skrew up.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 23:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Then again, that will mean that it would crash more b/c some people use "-" or "." or " --" or " - " or " --" or " -". I suppose that I could program in every combination.~~ Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 23:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added nowiki tags to fix the cat:semi issue. Also, I don't know what I was thinking, the first idea does work. I have implemented it my own monobook. If two articles have the same summary (same or no sig too), it should have no problems, I'll update the protection stand-alone script too.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 00:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh..[12] Looks like you are really busy today :). On a serious note, maybe the timing feature might be usefulVoice-of-All^T|@|ESP 01:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thaks for the newline suggestion, I've looked it up[13], and modified the script to clean things up.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 06:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SEMI

Indeed, I thought that talk page already had been unprotected, because I saw this edit on my watchlist shortly thereafter. However, I didn't notice that the edit got reverted and the page was not actually unprotected. Any idea if/when the devs will impliment an auto-expire feature for page protections? It would be nice to be able to protect a page and set it to unprotect itself in exactly "six hours", for example. I've heard rumors here and there about it. — Mar. 22, '06 [23:40] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I've talked about such I think, it could be useful, though the time should be hidden to non-sysops, otherwise vandal will get an exact time to know when to come back...and I am not just saying what Bush said :)...I am serious.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 23:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh... good point... hidden, definitely. — Mar. 22, '06 [23:58] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

"...but without the "indefinite" option"

I was in agreement up until that point. Indefinite should always be an option, though not the preferred one. George W. Bush, to be cliché, or that one page where the warez doodz keep harassing Alkivar, and probably a handful of others fall into this category. Additionally, I think would be ideal to also have expiring full-protection as an option. I seem to recall at least one case where vandalism unflinchingly continued even after semi-protection due to accounts having been bulk-registered in advance, thus I closely monitor the newuser spawn log for ones that looks suspicious, more closely than you monitor the protected page categories, I would wager. — Mar. 22, '06 [23:58] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

The fact that block conflicts swing in the direction of the shorter block is something I have found troubling for some time, and for that very reason, I have my IRC client set to beep loudly on the phrase "Block conflict" so I can fix things like that. It's especially a problem with admins who don't typically focus on vandalism, perhaps only if a WP:☭ sock or a squidward IP hits their favorite article. Perhaps in this case everybody else simultaneously makes the perscribed indefinite block, except for one guy who only blocks for 24 hours or maybe six, because he doesn't really know what he's dealing with (we need admin orientation meetings maybe). And unfortunately there's no on-site notification of this error for any involved party. I would prefer for the software to favor the longer block in the event of conflict, and (if extended to expiring page protections), favor the longer protection as well. That would ensure that an explicit unblock or unprotect would have to be performed for there to be any change that would enable more vandalism sooner. It would also avoid situations where one party might feign ignorance of having created the block/protect conflict for whatever reason. At a minimum, we need a warning in red letters "Are you sure you want to do this?" warning people before they create a block/protect conflict, regardless of whether the new action would have a greater or lesser duration than the old one, so they can either clear the old action first, or opt out of performing the new one afterall. If that concern can be addressed in one of the ways I explained, I see no obvious flaws in the proposal, so let's make it happen. — Mar. 23, '06 [00:46] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

If you're not even going to bother to assist at all in reverting the main page featured article open proxy penis vandal, then please, just don't involve yourself at all. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-23 01:13

Incorrect. This is exactly the situation that I have repeatedly been asked to clean out histories of libellous vandalisms before. This vandal is the same one who has been hitting main page articles and George W. Bush since November. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-23 01:30

RE:Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords

Thanks. I was about to do it myself. I don't like protecting pages that much so I've got little else on my protect log. :D -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: your bot

Sorry, I can't seem to get pywikipedia to ignore certain articles (any suggestions would be appreciated) so until I can figure it out I have stopped the bot but I may restart it using a hand filtered list generated through AWB. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that's why I'm branching out and finding other more useful tasks for the bot to help with. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Parrot

Thanks for your concern but as far as real articles are concerned, there is none that was not listed in the list of protected pages. The rest are blocked IP user talk pages that have been protected to prevent tampering with messages left on them. --BorgQueen 04:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those IP talk pages have been semiprotected because they were being persistently vandalized by the blocked users. However, I just unprotected those whose block have been expired or were not so persistent (except the IP used by the Gibraltarian since he keeps removing the notice). I will still keep an eye on the IP pages in case they return to their old habit. Regards, BorgQueen 13:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Romania in the Dark Ages

Thanks for unprotecting the page. It was the only none I sprotected, and I planned to unprotect it these days, but the user due to whom I protected (User:Greier) it reappeared, so I waited to see what are his actions before unprotecting the page. Thx. Mihai -^talk 07:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Pages

Hi Splash, thanks for the message on my talk page. The only protected pages I have are Robert Benfer and Knox (flash artist), which are repeatedly recreated AFD-deleted pages. I have no other semi-protected pages according to my Log. Please let me know on my talk page if I need to unlock those. Cheers. --kingboyk 11:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pic.jpg

Thanks for speedily processing my protection request on this image. Chris Chan.talk.contribs 23:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. -Splash^talk 23:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]